When Immigration Means Importing Terror

After a British soldier wearing a Help for Heroes charity T-shirt was run over, stabbed and slashed with machetes and a meat cleaver, and beheaded, the Tory government advised its soldiers that it is probably best not to appear in uniform on the streets of their capital.

Both murderers were wounded by police. One was photographed and recorded. His message:

“There are many, many (verses) throughout the Quran that says we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologize that women had to witness this today, but in our land women have to see the same. Your people will never be safe.”

According to ITV, one murderer, hands dripping blood, ranted, ”We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

Both killers are Muslim converts of African descent, and both are British born.

Wednesday also, Stockholm and its suburbs ended a fourth night of riots, vandalism and arson by immigrant mobs protesting the police shooting of a machete-wielding 69-year-old.

“We have institutional racism,” says Rami Al-khamisi, founder of a group for “social change.”

Sweden, racist?

Among advanced nations, Sweden ranks fourth in the number of asylum seekers it has admitted and second relative to its population.

Are the Swedes really the problem in Sweden?

The same day these stories ran, the Washington Post carried a front-page photo of Ibrahim Todashev, martial arts professional and friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who, with brother Dzhokhar, set off the bombs at the Boston Marathon massacre.

Todashev, another Chechen, had been shot to death by FBI agents, reportedly after he confessed to his and Tamerlan’s role in a triple murder in Waltham, Mass.

Though Tamerlan had been radicalized and Moscow had made inquiries about him, he had escaped the notice of U.S. authorities. Even after he returned to the Caucasus for six months, sought to contact extremists, then returned to the U.S.A., Tamerlan still was not on Homeland Security’s radar.

His father, granted political asylum, went back to the same region he had fled in fear. His mother had been arrested for shoplifting. Yet none of this caused U.S. officials to pick up Tamerlan, a welfare freeloader, and throw the lot of them out of the country.

One wonders if the West is going to wake up to the new world we have entered, or adhere to immigration policies dating to a liberal era long since dead.

It was in 1965, halcyon hour of the Great Society, that Ted Kennedy led Congress into abolishing a policy that had restricted immigration for 40 years, while we absorbed and Americanized the millions who had come over between 1890 and 1920.

The “national origins” feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.

Immigration policy was written to reinforce the Western orientation and roots of America, 90 percent of whose population could by 1960 trace its ancestry to the Old Continent.

But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new nation that looked less like Europe and more like a continental replica of the U.N. General Assembly.

They wanted to end America’s history as the largest and greatest of Western nations and make her a nation of nations, a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on the face of the earth.

Behind this vision lies an ideology, an idée fixe, that America is not a normal nation of blood and soil, history and heroes, but a nation erected upon an idea, the idea that anyone and everyone who comes here, raises his hand, and swears allegiance to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights becomes, de facto, not just a legal citizen but an American.

But that is no more true than to say that someone who arrives in Paris from Africa or the Middle East and raises his hand to declare allegiance to the Rights of Man thereby becomes a Frenchman.

What is the peril into which America and the West are drifting?

Ties of race, religion, ethnicity and culture are the prevailing winds among mankind and are tearing apart countries and continents. And as we bring in people from all over the world, they are not leaving all of their old allegiances and animosities behind.

Many carry them, if at times dormant, within their hearts.

And if we bring into America—afflicted by her polarized politics, hateful rhetoric and culture wars—peoples on all sides of every conflict roiling mankind, how do we think this experiment is going to end?

The immigration bill moving through the Senate, with an amnesty for 11 to 12 million illegals already here, and millions of their relatives back home, may write an end to more than just the Republican Party.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 31 comments

31 Responses to When Immigration Means Importing Terror

But was it not the original purebloods that demanded this new immigration? That gave us the sexual revolution, man-fault divorce and the abortion holocaust? That replaced fatherhood with a welfare check? That attack the traditional family and marriage (even in Catholic churches, how often do you see a family with 4+ children?).

If children are a blessing and barrenness a curse as the bible teaches, we have cursed ourselves. Do not condemn the vultures hovering around the person in process of suicide. We have chosen the culture of death.

In the West, we are living in a state of denial of the threat of fundamentalist Islamic aggression. We want to minimize it, we bend over backwards to explain it away. We self flagellate when the terror is inflicted upon us, we say we have brought it on ourselves. Twenty men, twenty Arabic Islamic men got together one day and decided to fly airplanes into occupied skyscrapers and government buildings and succeeded. We responded appropriately by going after the training grounds where they were trained. We did so in a military fashion that honestly should have been a lot more aggressive than it was.

Muslim terrorists planted bombs on subways in Madrid and killed scores, the Spanish responded by withdrawing their troops from the fight against the butchers. Persons born in England but of the Pakistani community coordinate and succeed to bomb the London tube, the British bend over backwards to say that they do not think that they have a problem with the ethnic communities that are mostly Islamic. This past week converts to Islam from an immigrant community in London decides to run over an off duty English soldier in civilian attire. They then precede to get out of the car and use butcher knives to decapitate him. In a move that showed he did not really fear the populace, the perpetrator stuck around to basically give an interview to a person to explain why they did it and then engage in a discussion with a woman who was trying to help. The British government goes to painstaking lengths to say that they don’t think this is indicative of the Islamic communities in the UK

Let’s face facts, shall we? The West has a problem on its hands as it applies to Islam and Muslims. The UK and Western Europe in particular right now has a huge problem with Islam and Muslims… problems that they themselves went out of their way to create and continue to perpetrate. These new arrivals come and many times come with little or no knowledge of the country or region they are coming to. It’s not like European immigrants coming to the U.S. from 1860-1920. Those immigrants were going to a land where the society had and core building blocks of the culture were familiar to them. The Italians that came had had contact with the English for centuries, ditto for the Irish and the Germans as well as the French along with the Jews from Eastern Europe. There was something of a common history and an exercise in the Western tradition and we must not discount the unifying force of Christianity even with its many sects.

Western Europe and even America is living under the delusion that all one has to do to be an American is to raise their hand and say they believe in something whether it be the Constitution or the Rights of Man and we have in our midst a budding American or Frenchman . It’s not that simple. We should stop deluding and lying to ourselves, especially in Europe.

Since 1492, immigrants have exported the conflicts that roiled them where they came from, whether between French, English and Spanish, between English colonists and the English home country and even among themselves with the 750,000 of the Civil War dead. The 100 million original inhabitants were centimated by genocide and disease.

I’m don’t know how the advocates of returning to an America whose demographics were overwhelmingly white northern European (themselves capable of internecine violence, even among whites of differing Christian backgrounds) see this being accomplished. Through mass immigration from Northern Europe? (America is not attractive enough in comparison to their own countries.) By encouraging northern European fecundity? (It is impossible that government subsidies for childbirth could be so targeted.)

I don’t think anyone here would entertain “Final Solution” scenarios, even though historically, that was once openly advocated for and was in fact imposed on American Indians – who have a better claim to the land than anyone else.

Before 1965, only 100 persons per year were permitted from the Indian subcontinent. How many people of Indian origin, since that was opened up, have become Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and Wall Street bankers? Plenty, yet they are hardly Christian. Though Caucasion, they have darker skin than northern Europeans – and demographically, higher I.Q.

Our own country has millions of our citizens abroad, often engaged in activities in those countries that are destructive on a scale that dwarfs any negative actions by a few foreign born individuals from those same areas here. Isn’t that what really drives the blowback here – that effectively, it appears that our own nationals are, as public policy, engaging in political and economic interference as well as indiscriminate killing in certain other lands – and that to a few deranged and violent individuals, it seems that it is also based on religious holy war?

Our own Christian heritage, dominated by the practice of Christendom, is rooted in the theologies developed by Augustine and Aquinas, among others, that specifically allow not only for “Just War” based on practically elastic criteria that have never prevented a single war, but actual theological justifications for Holy War, complete with torture. Our current actions do have a long pedigree, including religion, rooted in our own peculiar cultural inheritance of seeing our own violence as redemptive – when performed on others.

Pope Francis’ Tuesday homily on the origins of justifying killing others because we see them as irredeemable – essentially evil – is a refutation of this theological error. Since Christ died for the redemption of all – even atheists as well as those outside the church – then only fools could rush in where angels fear to tread, killing those whom Christ intentionally gave His life for.

I don’t think we can seriously marginalize immigrants when we are fomenting war and strife in their own former lands. European ancestors came here to escape strife, constant warfare, pogroms and severe social distress in their own nations, caused by their own relatives. When our failed foreign policies of dominating other countries causes such turmoil, creating mayhem and refugees, aren’t we ourselves significantly contributing to the pressures for emigration from those lands? Not to mention, among a minority, by our military interventions and invasions creating sympathy for our comeuppance, with actual retaliation attempted by a handful?

No wonder assimilation to our culture is difficult, when we are making it so needlessly hostile.

Contra a recent President, foreigners don’t hate us for our own freedoms (so quickly undermined); the vast majority don’t hate us at all, while most see our imperial adventurism as ill-conceived. (After all, a majority of our own citizens don’t approve, even though that has no effect on our elite-driven foreign policy.)

Some of them hate us for our oppression of their relatives elsewhere, even though it’s the policy that should be despised, not the persons, as both Pope Francis and Martin Luther King teach us.

If some Americans want the foreign-born to go home, then how about America itself first coming home?

The converts are the worst in any religion. On the other hand, if our crony capitalist system were a little less overbearing and destructive of everyone and everything around the world, maybe some wouldn’t feel so hopeless. I keep wondering why we are harassing the Islamic world… they have (had) oil and resources we want so we barge in and take it with little consideration for the locals. We ally ourselves with the most despicable criminals in these foreign places or colonize them and wonder why they hate us.

Mr. Buchannan wants to avoid importing terrorists…. I’m guessing the people of the middle east and Africa thought the same thing decades and centuries ago.

The thing is, neither the United States nor Europe need any immigrants any more.

We have more than enough people, including many millions of educated and skilled unemployed. We have failed to assimilate the immigrants that are already here. A lot of time, grief and money can be saved by halting immigration completely, shifting focus to locating and deporting illegal immigrants, and making sure that the tens of millions of legal immigrants already here are actually becoming Americans.

I’m honestly not sure what to make of this. Pat’s right up to a point. But take the wave of immigrants coming from Europe right after WWII. They were as he said

from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.

But these were countries that had cooperated either actively or passively with the Germans in carrying out the Holocaust. French “catholics” had seemingly few problems “helping” those Jews onto those trains bound for Auschwitz. In Poland, the Baltic republics and most other countries save Denmark, the people if they were not active participants did little or nothing to stop the carnage and were not unduly disturbed to see the Jews disappear. Many of the guards at the camps weren’t Germans and more than a few of them would show up on those boats after war on our doorstep and remain untroubled here the rest of their lives. The fact that they came from those countries and not say from South America meant what?

And sure these “DP’s as they were called came here, made new lives for themselves, put all that behind them, but what values did they bring with them? What did they bring out that decade or so? Were their actions really all that much more “American” than the groups that followed them later? Von Braun was a certifiable war criminal who used slave labor to build his rockets and he is viewed by many today as a transplanted “American” hero.

As we discuss the issue at hand let’s be careful here, let’s not be too revisionist in our viewing of history. Let’s not idolize the past too much. Let’s not ignore the horrors we perpetrated on the Indians which was genocide more or less. Let’s not forget that in the early 1900′s Jews as well as blacks were lynched in this country and that Jews had lots to fear from us “liking who we are”.

American exceptionalism? Not perhaps all that exceptional for much of our past. Is it truly the people that matter here or is it the principles embodied in “we are endowed by our Creator?” Does it really matter that much where someone comes from (it wasn’t immigrants so much that donned the hoods and burned crosses right?) or affinity to the Constitution and a determination to uphold and defend, something the last administration steadfastly refused to do?

In life, I’ve never been to Kentucky Derby; so, I do not know how it feels to bet on a horse everything that is important to me.

But, anyone can feel the above mentioned experience of world’s most spectacular horse-race just by looking at and hearing from Senator Marcos Rubios of Florida, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and talk-show host Sean Hannity of Fox News.

Senator Rubios has made a bet that if the amnesty for 30 million illegals passes, he wins in 2016 by receiving majority of American Hispanic votes.

And, if the amnesty fails in the House of Congress, Sen. Rubios wins in 2016 by telling the majority of Hispanic voters how hard he tried.

So, this is a win-win situation for Senator Marcos Rubios of Florida, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and talk-show host Sean Hannity of Fox News.

Before 1965, only 100 persons per year were permitted from the Indian subcontinent. How many people of Indian origin, since that was opened up, have become Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and Wall Street bankers? Plenty, yet they are hardly Christian. Though Caucasion, they have darker skin than northern Europeans – and demographically, higher I.Q.

Yes, and I’m sure that these same peoples would have fared just as well on their own and not within the framework of European Christian civilization. And it is certainly just a quirk you will not find their names among those who developed all the ideas which laid the foundation (Fourier, Laplace, Lagrange, Reimann,…).

From the Boston Globe regarding the Waltham triple killing Tamerlan Tsarnaev was involved in (:

…police should have examined the relationship between [Hibatalla] Eltilib, a native of ­Sudan, and Tsarnaev.

Although friends knew ­Tsarnaev to be Muslim, they did not consider him to be an ­extremist.

Eltilib, by contrast, was outspoken about her Islamic beliefs and disdain for many American values, friends said.

“She and Tam got really close and became friends,’’ said a friend of Mess, Tsarnaev, and Eltilib. “This was closer to ­Brendan’s death. They would share stories of their distaste for American culture. She was extremely aggressive and violent and had this radical way of thinking.’’

Mr. Buchanan should leave the argument over immigration reform to TAC contributors like William Chip (Immigration Made Right, 5/6/13), especially since his view of American and World history is so wildly at odds with the facts.

“The “national origins” feature of that 1924 law mandated that ships arriving at U.S. ports carry immigrants from countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. We liked who we were.”

Well, the Anglo-Saxon establishment liked only some of the countries that had provided our immigrants in the past. They most certainly did not like all of those Italians, Poles, Greeks, Jews or Slavs who had made up the overwhelming majority of immigrants in the preceding decades, nor, frankly, Mr. Buchanan’s Irish ancestors, and the law was written to reduce the number of immigrants coming from those countries as much as possible.

“But since 1965, immigration policy has been run by people who detest that America and wanted a new…nation of nations, a new society and a new people, more racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally diverse than any nation on the face of the earth.”

I don’t know if the crafters of the 1965 law wanted to make the US the most diverse nation on Earth but I think it is safe to say that they did not want to return to an immigration system based on discriminatory national quotas. Perhaps they found it detestable to go back to quotas that would prevent Southern and Eastern Europeans from migrating to the States, or people from Japan, China and The Philippines? This is perhaps not surprising given that we were in the midst of the struggle over civil rights.

“Behind this vision lies an ideology, an idée fixe, that America is not a normal nation of blood and soil, history and heroes, but a nation erected upon an idea, the idea that anyone and everyone who comes here, raises his hand, and swears allegiance to the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights becomes, de facto, not just a legal citizen but an American.”

Multi-national and multi-ethnic empires are as old as history, but Mr. Buchanan focuses so much on the nation that it seems less a prevailing wind than the un-contested way of organizing human society not just since the 19th Century but forever. His is the flip-side of a coin shared with the more vulgar multi-culturalists who would preserve or defend every facet of every culture, from African Kings to Chinese foot-binding. You might say that both sides have a whitewashed, Disneyfied view of their own culture.

“Ties of race, religion, ethnicity and culture are the prevailing winds among mankind and are tearing apart countries and continents.”

Do we really want to encourage the idea that Germans, Nordics and Anglo-Saxons are a different race from Slavs and Magyars, or is he just comfortable with the idea that there are white, black, yellow, brown and red races?

Would Mr. Buchanan paper over the differences within Christianity to create a united front against Islam, Judiasm and other non-European religions, and how long would it take for that front to fracture and for Christians to take up arms against each other as they have in the past?

Should we encourage the break-up of the UK, Belgium, Spain, Italy, France, Russia, China, Iraq, Turkey and Canada along ethnic, linguistic or old national lines? Were the past break-ups of India, Cyprus, Yugoslavia, the Levant and the Soviet Union (with some exceptions) really driven by popular sentiment or by elites struggling for power, wealth and control?

I’m sympathetic to the idea of secession, especially in a federated state, but are the Culture Wars worth dissolving the Republic? Or should a Black Nation be carved out of the American South? And just how do Blacks and American Indians fit in Mr. Buchanan’s vision of United America?

Shoot, ending on that line is going to get me accused of playing the race card. C’est la Vie.

Oh, and hanging his piece on the crimes of two children of immigrants in Britain and another handful of immigrants in the U.S. is of a piece with tarring the entire U.S. Left with the Weatherman and the entire U.S. Right with the Klan and Timothy McVeigh. A very thin reed, Mr. Buchanan, a very thin reed.

How many people did Timothy McVeigh kill? Were the killers in Newtown, Aurora and Columbine Islamofascistgayheathendarkcomplexioned terrorists? Should we denounced all Christians as gun-loving murderers because of the NRA? Have Cheney and Bush been brought to trial for manifest crimes against humanity? Has Rumsfeld been brought to trial for war crimes? Should we prohibit old white men from office and from immigration into this country because of the damages these trio of gangsters have caused to the United States?

Has Mr. Buchanan ever lived in Sweden, or anywhere in Scandinavia? Has he lived there as a dark-complexioned person?

“Before 1965, only 100 persons per year were permitted from the Indian subcontinent. How many people of Indian origin, since that was opened up, have become Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and Wall Street bankers? Plenty, yet they are hardly Christian. Though Caucasion, they have darker skin than northern Europeans – and demographically, higher I.Q.”

But somehow we had Silicon Valley, and I would argue a greater rate of technical progress, without the massive influx of Indians. And yes, Wall Street Bankers — that’s really worked out well of late, hasn’t it. If I recall, one of the biggest crooks to do a perp walk during the recent unpleasantness had sub-continental origins.

And no, Indian IQ is not higher than white IQ — perhaps among the first wave of immigrants, but not in the country and most likely not here any longer either.

Supposedly, he was radicalised at an infamous extremist mosque in London. My question to the readers and to Mr Buchanan is this: The UK spies on its citizens and indeed surveilled the attackers, it nevertheless allows a few extremist mosques to operate freely and recruit radicals, some of whom are exported to fight abroad (e.g., in Syria).

How then is this mainly a problem of immigration (not that I support Muslim immigration) but rather a problem created more directly by the State and its security services?

Well that is the question. The immigration issues in Europe are comprised of several factors: low birth rates, a genuine concern for the plight of others and perhaps some not so latent guilt over their role on the African Continent.

My next comments do not support violence in any manner nor the current riots. But if the Swedes have invited immigrants with promises of being assimilated into the culture and have failed to provide: education, employment opportunities, if they have targetted the invited communities for punitive criminal oversight for the behavior of a minority — and on and on —

Their situation is bound to foster frustration. I make no claims if the effects I mentioned are in play, but when I read the reports it seems so. Now guests of Sweden should either abide by the laws of the land or pack up and go elsewhere. If they intend to become citizens, no doubt a daunting task to leave a place like Somalia and adopt an entirely new philosophical way of thinking and living. To wit, the Swedes, God bless them, should ensure that they indoctrinate refugees in language, laws and tradition. Tradition is vital because it includes the nuances of culture. If being a Muslim interferes or contradicts the laws of the land, the Swedes are entitled bend or say, no. I think bending has consequences — well obviously.

In the United States unlike the native aqmerican, and again, I want to be careful here not to speak for black people. But to the benefit,in my view, slavery demolished any sincere roots of home and hearth. And the United States by law and tradition (in my view in violation of the law and intent comlex) particiapted in that emasculation. Consequence: United States alone is responsible for every slave and the decsedents thereof. They are original citizens whose fatherland/motherland traditions, laguage and religions were largely lost. Entire black cultures thrown together via skin color as opposed to region, laguage, religion —

When I visited Ellis Island, there was not a single black that came across via ship. I was quite stunned – not one. And yet, a large portion of the black community is not assimilated into the United States they built. The plantations and homes there built are carved out the skill and knowledge of black slaves. Skills passed on from places they knew only by narrative and vague narratives at that ass those who attempted to speak their original tongue – were so prevented and those who chose to exercise their right to do so — found no small consequence.

I stand on similar ground to cka2nd, though with a bit of a twist and a very cynical astonishment over Mr. Buchanan’s ignorance of European culture and history. My own take is personal and anecdotal, but I have full confidence in having much company.

My parents were of that crowd of undesirables who despite those national quotas finally made it to the US after WWII. My mother was a Croatian Jew, my father a chetnik and officer in the Serbian army that was defeated by Tito’s partisans. Perhaps they were rare to have eschewed joining the enclaves of their predecessors (western PA, for example), but perhaps Mr. Buchanan and others here reflect those who were simply hostile to any foreign accent in their hearing, and treated my parents and their children with disdain, distrust and the most egregious hypocrisy I’ve ever encountered since. I am disgusted with the prevailing “American morality” of “we’ve got ours, don’t even look in our direction” that puts the lie to so-called Christian charity, but I really shouldn’t be all that surprised by it. The only truly compassionate and generous Christians I knew of growing up were the cousins and descendants of the Italian Catholic peasants who saved my mother and her family, at daily risk to their own lives, until the Allies conquered northern Italy.

My mother’s one unapologetic bigotry was towards the Germans. She insisted to her dying day that there was something rotten at the core of that culture. I have no doubt that the modern German society is one in which I would not hesitate to live, but I can’t help but see evidence supporting her bigotry and extending it to the great swath of northern Europe’s legacy right here on this thread.

You know, if you are going to claim the moral high ground, you really should check under your own rugs first.

Do we really want to encourage the idea that Germans, Nordics and Anglo-Saxons are a different race from Slavs and Magyar

They are – race is nested; as long as you form a group that mostly procreates within your won group, you form a race. This can be as small scale as a tribe. or as large scale as a continental race (Caucasians, Congoids, Australoids).

Anglo-Saxons are separate from Slavs in the way that a Labrador retriever is different from a golden retriever. They are different from (literal) Indians in the way that a Labrador retriever is different from an English setter. They are different from Australian aborigines in the way that a Labrador retriever is different from a Shar-Pei.

I’m don’t know how the advocates of returning to an America whose demographics were overwhelmingly white northern European (themselves capable of internecine violence, even among whites of differing Christian backgrounds) see this being accomplished.

This is a strawman. There is no debate about getting rid of all of the non-Europeans living here. The debate is over letting more third-worlders immigrate. You seem to be saying that because America cannot go back to 1900, we have no other choice than to be swamped with more immigration. Hogwash.

I don’t think anyone here would entertain “Final Solution” scenarios

Oh, I think that there are a lot of people entertaining the idea of using “Final Solution” scenarios against whites.

American exceptionalism? Not perhaps all that exceptional for much of our past. Is it truly the people that matter here or is it the principles embodied in “we are endowed by our Creator?” Does it really matter that much where someone comes from (it wasn’t immigrants so much that donned the hoods and burned crosses right?)

In other words, examples of whites committing violence means that we can never criticize anyone else for being violent. Translation: because we are not perfect, we forfeit our right to exist.

or affinity to the Constitution and a determination to uphold and defend, something the last administration steadfastly refused to do?

The last administration and this administration and the one before the last one, buddy. And with all due respect, is there any evidence that our immigration policy is admitting people based on their affinity to our Constitution?

I keep wondering why we are harassing the Islamic world… they have (had) oil and resources we want so we barge in and take it with little consideration for the locals. We ally ourselves with the most despicable criminals in these foreign places or colonize them and wonder why they hate us.

Mr. Buchannan wants to avoid importing terrorists…. I’m guessing the people of the middle east and Africa thought the same thing decades and centuries ago.

Considering that the people who most want the U.S. to colonize the third world (neocons like Bush II, McCain, and Lindsey Graham) are also the ones most in favor of heavy third-world immigration, and that Buchanan has gone on record opposing U.S. intervention in the Middle East, I think that he already understands that point.

. I am disgusted with the prevailing “American morality” of “we’ve got ours, don’t even look in our direction” that puts the lie to so-called Christian charity,
Oh yes we’re the bigots, but you can pass judgement on ‘American’ morality…
“My mother’s one unapologetic bigotry was towards the Germans”
and that’s ok, right?

I note that truncated versions of what the murderers of British Army Drummer Lee Rigby, 25, said are appearing in news accounts and op-ed pieces. The Telegraph did provide fuller versions of what was said (my emphasis of what is truncated):

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. Your people will never be safe. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.

“We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die?

Going down the memory hole is:

“No, it’s going to be the average guy like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we, so you can all live in peace.”

This has some connection to the idea that they’re here because we’re over there.

Regarding the Swedes:

Please ignore the following table showing the IQ scores of the several immigrant groups that make Sweden their home. (I’ve added Germany and the United States to provide a context. Yugoslavia no longer exists so I’ve used the average scores of some of the component peoples of that country. Note that these are average scores. A large sub-population of low-IQ individuals will draw the average down.)